Responsibility through Anticipation? The ‘Future Talk’ and the Quest for Plausibility in the Governance of Emerging Technologies

In anticipatory governance (AG) and responsible innovation (RI), anticipation is a key theoretical and practical dimension for promoting a more responsible governance of new and emerging sciences and technologies. Yet, anticipation has been subjected to a range of criticisms, such that many now see it as unnecessary for AG and RI. According to Alfred Nordmann, practices engaging with ‘the future’, when performed under certain conditions, may reify the future, diminish our ability to see what is happening, and/or reproduce the illusion of control over the future. Several authors have stressed that these critiques fail to capture the heterogeneous character of anticipatory practices, and yet research on the question of what particular kind of socio-epistemic engagements with ‘the future’ AG and RI aim to enact through anticipation remains fragmentary and their underlying rationale under-theorised. This article aims to advance the theoretical characterisation and problematisation of anticipation as key interventive tools for AG and RI. By distinguishing between four modes of anticipation and heuristically testing them against Nordmann’s critiques, the article argues that despite his assessment failing to recognise the heterogeneity of anticipatory practices considered valuable for AG and RI, it reinforces the relevance of performing certain modes of anticipatory exercises, namely critical-hermeneutic ones. Thus, anticipation continues to be a necessary heuristic dimension for AG and RI. More concretely, the article maintains that such anticipatory heuristics may find their radical constructive and critical-reflective character in the dynamics of inclusive scrutiny and negotiation about the (im)plausibility and (un)desirability of the envisioned or (co-)created futures.

Temporarily Abled: How Exoskeleton Experience Reinvents Bodies in Spinal Cord Injury and Cerebrovascular Accidents

Recent achievements in rehabilitative robotics modify essential parameters of the human body, such as motility. Exoskeletons used for persons with neurological impairments like spinal cord injury and stroke enter this category by rehabilitating and assisting damaged motor patterns, achievements thought impossible until not long ago. Unlike other examples leading to similar dysfunctions, such as diseases or tumors, the experience of an accident causing a spinal cord injury or the occurrence of a cerebrovascular accident is sudden and perceived as a radical event. This often leads to deep consequences for one’s own body capacities. Exoskeletons attempt to alter this condition, contributing to forge a temporary abled body, although this currently happens in the restricted space of a clinic or a lab and under very controlled conditions for the predominance of users. Using qualitative empirical material from an ongoing study in sociology, including expert and narrative interviews as well as ethnographic visits in labs and centers that design and test exoskeletons, this article addresses the challenges and gains that people with stroke and spinal cord injury experience during their training with exoskeletons. The discussed cases contribute to reassess categories from the phenomenological paradigm, disability studies, and the role medical technologies play in contemporary body worlds.

How Can I Contribute? Citizen Engagement in the Development of Nanotechnology for Health

Scholars and policymakers have increasingly advocated to engage citizens more substantially in the development of science and technology. However, to a large extent it has remained unknown how citizens can contribute to technology development. In this study, we systematically characterized citizens’ contributions in the development of nanotechnology for health. We explored to which technology aspects citizens are able to provide suggestions on and on which values their suggestions are based. Fifty citizens in the Netherlands were asked to discuss different applications of nanotechnology for health. They were divided over eight focus groups, which lasted approximately 6.5h each. The citizens were able to contribute to various technology aspects; they mainly focused on the technologies’ implementation and use, they paid some attention to the development and system aspects, and also addressed, but less, the design and communication aspects. Their suggestions were often derived from concerns about the potential effects of the technologies and were predominantly based on the values of well-being, autonomy, and privacy.

Responsible Innovation Definitions, Practices, and Motivations from Nanotechnology Researchers in Food and Agriculture

The growth of responsible innovation (RI) scholarship has been mirrored by a proliferation of RI definitions and practices, as well as a recognition of the importance of context for RI. This study investigates how researchers in the field of nanotechnology for food and agriculture (nano-agrifoods) define and practice RI, as well as what motivations they see for pursuing RI. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with nano-agrifood researchers from industry and academia in the USA, where we asked them to describe their RI definitions, practices, and motivations. We analyzed the emergent themes from these interviews, including how the themes aligned with four prominent RI principles (anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, responsiveness). We found that nano-agrifood researchers largely focused their descriptions of RI definitions, practices, and motivations around a narrow envisioning of the RI principle of anticipation — emphasizing product safety, efficacy, and efficiency. We also found noteworthy tensions surrounding the less frequently mentioned RI principles. For example, some researchers envisioned inclusion as a way to align products with industry interests while others saw it as a way to align products with the public good. Concerning motivations for RI, some researchers viewed RI as a way to protect one’s reputation and avoid lawsuits while others viewed it as a way to improve human well-being and solve societal problems. Given these findings, future efforts to foster RI within nano-agrifoods should promote discussions among researchers concerning what it means to responsibly innovate and what practices this could entail, particularly beyond ensuring product safety, efficacy, and efficiency.

Thoughts Unlocked by Technology—a Survey in Germany About Brain-Computer Interfaces

A brain-computer interface (BCI) is a rapidly evolving neurotechnology connecting the human brain with a computer. In its classic form, brain activity is recorded and used to control external devices like protheses or wheelchairs. Thus, BCI users act with the power of their thoughts. While the initial development has focused on medical uses of BCIs, non-medical applications have recently been gaining more attention, for example in automobiles, airplanes, and the entertainment context. However, the attitudes of the general public towards BCIs have hardly been explored. Among the general population in Germany aged 18–65 years, a representative online survey with 20 items was conducted in summer 2018 (n = 1000) and analysed by descriptive statistics. The survey assessed: affinity for technology; previous knowledge and experience concerning BCIs; the attitude towards ethical, social and legal implications of BCI use and demographic information. Our results indicate that BCIs are a unique and puzzling way of human–machine interaction. The findings reveal a positive view and high level of trust in BCIs on the one hand but on the other hand a wide range of ethical and anthropological concerns. Agency and responsibility were clearly attributed to the BCI user. The participants’ opinions were divided regarding the impact BCIs have on humankind. In summary, a high level of ambivalence regarding BCIs was found. We suggest better information of the public and the promotion of public deliberation about BCIs in order to ensure responsible development and application of this potentially disruptive technology.